THE Jeff ... and his Helmet Concepts -- NFC Version (or...'When the Inmate runs the Asylum' Part 2)

By Phil Hecken, on January 1st, 2012

By Phil Hecken

A couple of weeks ago I brought you some strange and bizarre helmet concepts from none other than “The Jeff” Provo. While a number of them (even THE admits) weren’t designed to actually be worn (or that good), there were a few gems in there. Last time we had THE’s concepts for the AFC, and today we bookend the set, with the NFC.

There’s not much to say, and what there is to say…well, THE will say it below. So, without further ado, here’s THE:

~~~

NFC Helmet ConceptsBy Jeff Provo

Hey Phil. Remember when I said I was going to flood you with helmet images? Well, here’s the flood – there’s 81 helmets total. I split them up into AFC and NFC – my (brief) descriptions are below.

…and for the record, I don’t think all of these are improvements. For example I think the Bengals and Rams helmets are perfect as they are, but I felt that I had to do something for each team.

Lions
1 – Current logo, no black.
2 – Current logo, embracing the black.
3 – A retro mashup with another Detroit sports team. If the Knicks could use a Yankees’ NY, why couldn’t the Lions have used the Tigers’ D? Note that the helmet is gray, not silver.

Vikings
1 – Inspired by Michigan State’s pro combat helmets, I tried to make the Vikings helmets look a bit more like the real thing.
2 – Yellow helmet.
3 – A purple helmet with the Viking head logo, which has probably been used in various color combinatons by at least 247 different High Schools around the country.

______________________

NFC East

Cowboys
1 – Royal blue instead of navy, the metallic silver-blue is a bit more noticeably blue, and I made the facemask white. They wear white so often, it just seems more appropriate that way.
2 – Inverted the colors of helmet 1.

Redskins
1 – A yellow version of their current helmet to go with their yellow pants. Pants of that style were first worn with a yellow helmet, after all.
2 – I put the spear on their helmets, but in their current colors. The original spear was metallic.
3 – As a potential shift away from the native imagery, I replaced the face with a W.
4 – Final stage of the shift – the team is renamed Warriors and I put the Circle-W in front of a pair of crossed battle axes. I’m not entirely happy with the axes though, so consider this sort of a rough draft.

Cardinals
1 – Red helmet, nothing real special.
2 – The “birds eye” helmet. Honestly, you could probably do something like this for any of the animal teams, but the Cardinals logo is by far the easiest to work with.

Falcons
1 – This has probably been done a few times – the late 80’s red helmet with the current logo on it.
2 – Their logo has a silver outline on it. Why? I don’t know, so I thought I’d just put it on a silver helmet and get rid of the extra outline.

Saints
1 – Black helmet with the Louisiana logo that they used to have as a sleeve patch.
2 – White helmet, gold logo.
I thought about doing a Mardi Gras themed helmet with green and purple beads wrapped around the logo, but since Mardi Gras is after the season ends, I didn’t see a point.

~~~

Thanks, THE. Like the previous AFC set, a couple of really nice ones in there, I do have to say. OK, dear readers, what say you?

~~~~~~~~~~

Old Men, Skating

Yesterday afternoon, in preparation for Monday’s Winter Classic, the Philadelphia Flyers and New York Rangers’ alumni participated in a scrimmage or sorts, to break in the rink for the real game. I actually watched a few minutes of the game, in between Bowl-hopping, and it was nice. The game was color-versus-color, and the Flyers wore a small “10” patch to honor the late Brad McCrimmon, who died in the KHL plane crash tragedy back in September.

Next up is Ryan Dowgin, our Colgate colorizer, who has a bit of an unfinished symphony for us:

Phil,

So you don’t think I’ve been slacking (I have)… Here is my work in progress. I doubt I will be done by Sunday, but next week it will be done for sure.

Ryan Dowgin

~~~

And we conclude with a couple from the other half of the G&G Boys, Gary Chanko:

Phil

Last Sunday’s Vince Banonis colorization showed him in a blue uniform setup based on my guess. Uni-Watch reader Larry B found information that suggested Univ of Detroit football unis might have been red. Some further research turned up this article mentioning the 1939 “red and white” football squad.

So back to the drawing board for a Vince Banonis do over.

Gary

And Gary’s other contribution was also sent in prior to last weekend (but the sentiment still applies). Gary, too, took on the Rams colorization:

Phil

Mr Wells where are you when I need you the most? Fire up that time machine and set the dial to 1955 and let me escape today’s football uniform madness. Put me back into the LA Coliseum for that December Rams vs Packers game.

That’s all for the first installment of Colorize This! for 2012. Back with more soon. Thanks to all who submitted!

~~~~~~~~~~

Uni Tweaks Concepts

We have another new set of tweaks, er…concepts today. After discussion with a number of readers, it’s probably more apropos to call most of the reader submissions “concepts” rather than tweaks. So that’s that.

So if you’ve concept for any sport, or just a tweak or wholesale revision, send them my way.

Please do try to keep your descriptions to ~50 words (give or take) per image — if you have three uniform concepts in one image, then obviously, you can go a little over, but no novels, OK? OK!. You guys have usually been good with keeping the descriptions pretty short, and I thank you for that.

And so, lets begin:

~~~

We start with Tommy Da, who has a new Astros logo concept:

Phil:

This is a rough sketch I did of a new Astros logo for a move to the AL. It is really rough (done in MS paint) but it’s just the concept. I reverted to the old colors and the logo is meant to evoke a spaceship while still staying simple.

Tommy Da

~~~

Next up is Leo Chomiak, who comes from the Mike Engle/Jim Vilk school of tweaks:

Growing up in Miami I’ve always been a die hard Canes fan. When Pete Carroll was hired at USC he said something along the lines of that he wanted to make the Trojans a University of Miami on the west coast. After hearing this USC instantly became my second favorite team. I believe USC has one of the best uniforms in all of sports, but I think the one-off pro combat uniforms are fun so I decided to make one myself.

I don’t have any kind of photoshop program so I did this by hand. I stuck with the template used on georgia, boise, and miami and there for replaced the sleeve numbers with a dark gunmetal gray semi-circle sleeve design. I made the shoulder stripes a little skinnier and further off the shoulder. I changed both the helmet and pants to the same dark gray. I also replaced the helmet logo with the one seen on the 50 yard line in the Colosseum. I made the socks black and put a thin red stripe around it because most players now a day put a skinny wrist band there anyways.

-Leo

~~~

And we conclude with Mark Peterson, who thought my Isles Gorton Logo could use some cleaning up:

For the life of me, Phil, I can’t get how or why an old school Islanders fan would like the Fisherman so much! =P

From my perspective on what really gets to me:

• It has a dreadful color scheme: navy, orange, teal, and silver. A total trendy 1990s colors wash & only one traditional Isles color.
• It’s a computer drawn logo that looks typical with a font that’s nothing special.
• His skin tone is orange! Was this to signify early morning / late evening fishing?
• Yeah I like Fish ‘N Chips with tons of tartar sauce, but I would never put the Gorton’s Fisherman on a hockey jersey. It still looks very Minor League.
• The 3-stroke wave graphic – what’s it’s purpose? Is he playing hockey on a dock and the ocean is splashing upward?
• The logo has extreme line width-range issues, including extremely narrow accents on the goal post & netting and hockey stick that are lost in shrinkage.

I don’t know what was going on with the Isles back in the mid-1990s, but was there such discontent with the franchise that they were in such disarray that a complete change was needed? Or was the change just a complete and total random act of ruthless vigilante violence that was met with justified outrage?

As for your Isles fandom, to steal a line from It Gets Better Project (if that’s okay): ‘Trust me, it will get better’ …someday. I know the urge to abandon ship is overwhelming – I became a huge NHL / Blackhawks fan in the mid-1990s and suffered through some really awful seasons and some really bad ownership (old man Bill Wirtz refused to put home games on TV) and once his son Rocky took over, the franchise went through a total rebirth and won the Stanley Cup (conveniently). Like you said to me, stay tough and hang in there. If anything, use your other local teams as your main focus if you put the Isles on the back burner. Honestly, 4 leagues is more than enough for me to handle in a year.

Hope you’re having a good Saturday.
Mark

~~~

Thanks lads. That’s it for today. Back with more tomorrow.

~~~~~~~~~~

MoVi’s Bowl 5 & 1…part the first

Who said our man on the street, Jim “I Love The Sun Bowl” Vilk isn’t the hardest working 5 & 1 guy in the business? OK, I did, but I take it back. Not only did Jim take the Vilklan on an entire New Year’s Eve bowling night (no, he didn’t wear that shirt — it was in the laundry from Christmas)…he even had time to throw together the following “first-half of the bowl season” 5 & 1 at midnight.

I’d already put today’s post to bed when the call came in, so I REALLY have no idea what we’re about to see. Let’s hope Jim’s on his game, eh?

You know, if they’d finish the bowls on New Year’s Day, you wouldn’t have to wait two weeks for part II…

~~~

Thanks Jim. And in an extra special treat, in case you couldn’t get enough of the Vilkman…he’ll be back tomorrow with my favorite 5 & 1…the ALL-OREGON DUCKS 5 & 1! Woo-hoo. Make sure you tune in just for that.

~~~~~~~~~~

Meanwhile, more orange versus blue…

… took place down at the Christian Sammich Chick-fil-A (nee Peach) Bowl in the Georgia Dome last evening.

Auburn wore it’s “normal” home uniform: white/blue/white/white while Virginia wore orange/orange/blue/blue — the first time since 1974 (or something) that the Cavaliers have worn an orange topper.

THE Jeff, Robert Marshall, and Jim Vilk all approved. I’m all for color-versus-color (when used rarely and sparingly at that), and a bowl on a neutral field seems like the perfect occasion for such. Maybe 50 years ago on a 13″ black and white analog television with rabbit ears, a game like this couldn’t be watched easily, but nowadays, when almost everyone has HDTV and pretty much the entire country owns a color TV, there’s no reason we can’t be treated to the occasional color-versus-color game.

And that will do it for this first day of January in the year 2012. Hope everyone had a safe and enjoyable amateur night New Year’s Eve. Sadly, even though today is New Year’s Day, there is not a single college football bowl game today, and the Winter Classic, which for the previous four years had been held on NYD, will also be moved to tomorrow — all to make way for the league where they play for pay. But, there are a full slate of NFL games today to keep everyone occupied, plus MOST of us have Monday as a holiday. So it’s not all bad.

Have a great Sunday all.

~~~

“I believe Flyover County is in Ohio, and that’s how the Dayton Flyers got their name.” — Gregory Koch

125 comments to THE Jeff … and his Helmet Concepts — NFC Version (or…’When the Inmate runs the Asylum’ Part 2)

Josh Lewis|
January 1, 2012 at 7:15 am |

Dayton Flyers got their nickname because Orville amd Wilbur Wright were from Dayton and their house is roughly a couple of miles from UD’s campus. Their old bicycle shop has been relocated less than 1/2 mile from UD Arena.

Bowl games should be color on color (when feasible) as a rule. The same with NFL and NHL playoffs.

The Jeff|
January 1, 2012 at 7:41 am |

Indeed.

…and really, it’s almost always feasible. There aren’t very many matchups where there isn’t a viable color vs color option. You may have to add a new alternate for a few teams, but it would still be team colored.

It’ll just be a matter of time before a navy vs royal, black vs navy, light blue vs darker blue, maybe a forest vs black or royal or red vs crimson; etc. As much as you people love color, sometimes a lot of color saturated in an area isn’t an appealing visual. Of course let’s not forget about the equipment managers who would have to pack for every possible match-up. Teams really should stick to a designated home/road set, I mean that’s the whole point of having them.

The Jeff|
January 1, 2012 at 8:26 am |

It wouldn’t be that hard to put in rules banning certain combinations. Soccer seems to get by with mostly allowing color vs color, the only difference is that the “change kits” are usually completely NOT team colors (and thus kinda stupid). The general idea works though. You don’t need home & road, you need primary and secondary.

George Chilvers|
January 1, 2012 at 8:35 am |

To us “soccer” fans the concept of white v colour is s strange one anyway.

Teams have their primary/first kit, which in England anyway is the one that the home team play in. The only requirement for the away team is to ensur ethat their colours are distinguishable. So the equipment manager (“kit man”) doesn’t have to pack every possible match-up – he packs the kit for the game, either first or change. Very occasionally it goes wrong – hence the tales of teams having to borrow the home team’s change strip.

Ultimately the referee decides whether kits clash, but over time everyone knows when change kits are going to be worn.

concealed78|
January 1, 2012 at 8:59 am |

Or they could simply follow the current rule of wearing the designated home or road set. Simple.

I wouldn’t bring soccer into any American sports discussion anyway. They have their own way of doing things.

The Jeff|
January 1, 2012 at 9:49 am |

Even so, there’s no reason for mandatory white jerseys. Why can’t the Raiders designated road jersey be silver or the Packers be yellow?

Ricko|
January 1, 2012 at 10:49 am |

Probably because the NFL isn’t interested in having a Director of Swatch Matching & Approval.

Given the fact they think pink looks pretty darn nifty on every team, no matter what their colors, is there any evidence to conclude they could be trusted with Swatch Matching? :)

concealed78|
January 1, 2012 at 11:03 am |

“there’s no reason for mandatory white jerseys”

Yes there is. There’s too many teams to wear just one jersey all season. And while we think this out: Athletic Gold football jerseys are ghastly, Vegas Gold & beige is pretty ugly and rare as a jersey, powder/light blue works well, light/Slimer green is an eye sore, pink is beyond reprehensible, gray/silver is too close to white & looks like a dirty white, and I don’t think anybody wants a light purple/lavender or light orange jersey either. White is the way to go & it’s clean and offers perfect contrast.

If anything, the Cowboys would probably like to banish their blue jersey completely, and I wouldn’t mind seeing a few NFL teams banish their color jerseys in favor of a permanent white jersey. Dolphins come to mind as well.

The Jeff|
January 1, 2012 at 11:05 am |

Fair enough Ricko…. but they still don’t need to mandate white jerseys. They could easily just say “wear whatever color jersey you want” and we’d get at least a few color vs color games. Even if you do end up with the occasional hard to watch black vs navy game, both teams are affected by it on the field so it’s not unfair. How about they enforce the hell out of the proper sock/shoe rules, but let the teams decide on their own jerseys. The attention whore wearing red shoes when his team is blue & yellow? No, you don’t get to play. But if the Raiders & Broncos want to go black vs orange for both games, let ’em.

My thinking is that the football people would fight it. As I’ve said, the mandating of white jerseys for the sake of TV led them to discover it helped in many other facets of the game.

For example, ever seen one of those in-game photos coaches use? Shows all 22 players, so everyone’s pretty small. One team in white makes it instantly easy to decipher which are our guys and which are the other guys.

Kinda like when we see a full shot shortly before the snap on TV. We’d have to be blind not to see how much easier one team in white makes it to immediately know where everyone is, without having to stare a bit and spend time figuring it out.

And it isn’t white per se, it’s just that really high light-dark differentiation is essential. My problem with going away from the current rule is that some yutz will think the Redskins in burgundy will work against Raiders in black. Or Packers in forest vs. Bears in navy. Yeah, I know they did that a long time ago. But that was before TV and before in-game visual images.

Sticking with one-team-in-white is just plain easier, and doesn’t allow for moronic independent decisions. I just think in this case it really is about the football—as it should be—not the view from someone’s couch.

concealed78|
January 1, 2012 at 11:22 am |

Ow!! My retinas!!

Do you wear sunglasses 24/7, Jeff? Those yellow jerseys are as bright as the sun. It’s one thing if the Lakers player under factory/arena halogen lights indoors, it’s another completely different thing to play under the sun during the daytime.

I’m starting to wonder what this hatred of all-things honkie-white is stemming from.

concealed78|
January 1, 2012 at 11:26 am |

“Given the fact they think pink looks pretty darn nifty on every team”

The NFL sees the color green when it sees pink, Ricko and they come off feeling like one proud league for being so compassionate. “The nfl CARES about your old lady!” Bah. A whole month of that shit. Insert patent line: ‘and what’s the exit strategy?’ Just another Stars & Stripes fiasco.

The Jeff|
January 1, 2012 at 11:36 am |

Ow!! My retinas!!

So… obviously those jerseys provide more than enough contrast from the Chiefs red. ;)

It’s kinda funny really… I had the same “ow my eyes” feeling while watching the Panthers/Vikings game a few weeks ago. The sunlit Panthers blue was actually brighter than the Vikings white in the shade. The game would have had more contrast if it was color vs color.

Ricko|
January 1, 2012 at 11:38 am |

Ah, therefore my reference to “moronic independent decisions”…

Left to their devices, didn’t the players and teams incorporate pink with a true eye for what looks good.

Anyone seen photos of what kids think look great for “promwear” these days? I rest my case.

That Rams/Chiefs game was one of the best matchups in the history of ever.

And I can see where The’s point when it comes to white unis and sunny games. If there’s enough contrast, the more color the better. Several times I’ve docked teams in the 5&1 for looking washed out in the bright sun.

LarryB|
January 1, 2012 at 1:04 pm |

I would love to see more color on color games. But like Phil says too much would lessen the effect. I would love to see an Ohio State Michigan color on color game.

My Pitt Washington colorized pic was color on color.

RMB|
January 1, 2012 at 1:38 pm |

I don’t know if it still happens but I remember in the late 90s playoff hockey in Germany’s DEL did exactly that.

The Jeff|
January 1, 2012 at 8:00 am |

…and how the hell did Auburn/Virginia not make the 5/1? What the frack Vilk?

That game was far better than anything involving a team in mono-white with a colored helmet, even if Virginia’s pants stripe things are a bit odd.

Phil Hecken|
January 1, 2012 at 8:43 am |

that may be in the second 5 & 1 (gotta stretch the 5 & 1s out you know)

Jim Vilk|
January 1, 2012 at 3:05 pm |

First 5&1 was Dec. 17th through the 30th. Second one is for New Year’s Eve through the final game.

And I’m sure the orange awesomeness will make an appearance. Speaking of which…here’s last night’s shirt of choice:http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7141/6614415015_25a0316e0e.jpg
Put that on even before I knew what Virginia was going to wear. When I saw the helmets on the bowling alley TV, I was so surprised that it took me a quarter and a half to realize it was a color vs. color game.

NotOsama|
January 1, 2012 at 9:09 am |

Unfortunately, the Packers helmet already has metallic gold flake in it : (

The Jeff|
January 1, 2012 at 9:37 am |

I knew I should have made that darker or something…

Imagine something similar to the Saints current helmets.

Wheels|
January 1, 2012 at 9:39 am |

The Jeff, I think it’s cool that you came up with Warriors as a new name for the Redskins. I’ve also long thought that would make sense for a name change, It rolls off the tongue, and it retains the team’s identity. Dig the silver Eagles helmet with the green wing. Some cool ideas for sure.

elgato11x|
January 1, 2012 at 12:49 pm |

I read somewhere that the Redskins actually own the trademark to the name “Washington Warriors”. My guess is that they trademarked it just in case the NFL and/or a lawsuit from Native Americans forced them to change.

The Jeff|
January 1, 2012 at 1:03 pm |

I could be wrong, but I think that was actually going to be an Arena League team with shared ownership (similar to the Dallas Desparados/Cowboys connection), prior to the original league folding a couple years ago. I know I’m not the first to come up with the name.

I’ve also thought about the “D.C. Dragons” as a team name, but I haven’t done any serious concepts.

Those are the only names that I think would work within the current color scheme. Anything else, you’re looking at a total overhaul and dismissal of team history.

The “Champs Sports” Bowl isn’t the game that was the original Tangerine Bowl. The original Tangerine Bowl (1947-1982) became the Citrus Bowl and is now the Capital One What’s In Your Wallet Bowl.

The Champs Sports Bowl was originally the Sunshine Classic in 1990 in Miami, called the Blockbuster Bowl (and then the Carquest Bowl and the MicronPC Bowl) then it moved to Orlando and was the Visit Florida Tangerine Bowl (2001) and the Mazda Tangerine Bowl (2002-2003) and is now the Champs Sports Bowl (since 2004).

So, yes, technically it was called the “Tangerine” Bowl for three years, but it’s not the original Tangerine Bowl from the old days, in the I-wish-they-still-used-the-old-names-instead-of-all-these-corporate names sense.

Jim Vilk|
January 1, 2012 at 4:40 pm |

Well, if the other game in Orlando makes the final list, I’ll call it the “I’m calling it the original Tangerine Bowl”…

kevodrums|
January 1, 2012 at 5:39 pm |

My dad played in the 1950 Tangerine Bowl for St. Vincent. They won 7 – 6 against Emory. I was happy to see them bring the name back, although sadly it didn’t last.

Fun helmet concepts today. Loved the Cardinals “eye-catching” one, that’s actually a great idea. The Bears one is interesting too. I much prefer helmets that don’t have letter logos/wordmarks. I guess an exception would be the Giants and probably 49ers since having a cartoon giant would look silly on their helmets.

Russ|
January 1, 2012 at 11:04 am |

Respectfully disagree. Keep the “interesting” logos on the 50 yard line and the helmets simple and clean.

Love the Cardinals headliner, the Eagle Wing and the Washington spear. Also love the Washington “W” without the feathers or axes.

Putting an intricate bear design on the side of the helmet has little impact from far away and just looks too busy and jumbled to have any meaningful impact.

M.Princip|
January 1, 2012 at 11:41 am |

In my opinion, sometimes jumbled can work, if the overall outline or profile of the decal is complimentary to the helmet. For example, I dig letters mixed with the team mascot;i.e. LSU, Ravens first helmet decal(winged shield)…etc. Suffice to say, I thought the most interesting in Jeff’s set was the Lions: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7169/6607875329_b3572d0fa0_o.jpg

I liked The Jeff’s current Lions helmet, but omitting black, the best! Awesome!

Rob|
January 1, 2012 at 11:00 am |

Did anyone notice that Tampa Bay wore thier “Bolts” alts from last year in the game with the Hurricanes last night? Did they retain those after the switchover? They have the old logo on the shoulders. Did I miss something?

Nope, I recall that despite the redesign, the BOLTS jersey was too good at retail sale to retire it so soon. So it is the exception to the redesign. (Though as a chronic skeptic and enthusiastic devil’s advocate, I have to wonder whether it’s the opposite. “Too much inventory on hand, let’s not order any more of them, and see how long we can get away with the regular price until we have to surrender to clearance pricing?” I cannot deny that possibility.)

The Jeff|
January 1, 2012 at 12:40 pm |

I was thinking it was a compromise to everyone complaining about the new uniforms. But your theory works too.

that’s why you keep them to a minimum and even then, use them sparingly

but they are a nice break from time to time

The Jeff|
January 1, 2012 at 11:43 am |

you’ll also get some very stupid matchups

The stupid part of that image is the white pants. If Florida State wore either red pants or mono-gold, it’d be fine.

I know color vs color isn’t going to come back full time, but it’s not the supreme evil that some people try to make it out to be. I really think that letting the teams decide is the best option. If they want to wear white, fine. But if they don’t, that should be fine too.

elgato11x|
January 1, 2012 at 12:56 pm |

I think that Eagles-Giants one looks pretty good actually. I dont really see anything wrong with the Broncos-Raiders one either.

Phil Hecken|
January 1, 2012 at 12:59 pm |

well, the broncos/raiders one was an example of a good color vs. color game

Ricko|
January 1, 2012 at 1:09 pm |

I think I’ll bow out of this.

I just realized most of you are thinking only about how it looks…esp. close up and not in motion.

I’m focused on whether it works, from the standpoint of players, coaches, officials and more…and the people sitting in the 50th row.

Totally different discussions and criteria.

The Jeff|
January 1, 2012 at 1:19 pm |

Ricko, it works. Multiple games over the past 10-15 years have proven that.

It worked for decades before TV, and it works now. A dark color vs white may be *easier* but color vs color works.

Forcing one team to wear white is like driving a car with automatic transmission. Color vs color is driving a manual. One is easier than the other, but they both work.

Phil Hecken|
January 1, 2012 at 1:30 pm |

“most of you are thinking only about how it looks”

~~~

well…yeah

that’s generally how we think about such things

color-vs-color, used sparingly and with proper combinations…works

Ricko|
January 1, 2012 at 1:44 pm |

It ain’t about “easier”.
It’s about “easiest”.

That’s my point.

Yes, they can live with it once in awhile. As a steady diet, I think most football people would prefer dark vs. white, simply because it provides maximum visual efficiency. And does so quite universally.

And, dumb me, I think that matters. It isn’t just a TV show, you know. Or a video game. It’s real people trying to play the game. And what works best for the greatest number, and in the least complicated fashion, is best.

The Jeff|
January 1, 2012 at 1:53 pm |

On the other hand, NFL players make enough money… if they have to play color vs color for a few games a year (division rivals, playoffs, super bowl) …they can fucking deal with it.

concealed78|
January 1, 2012 at 2:00 pm |

Just because NFL players make a lot of money doesn’t mean it’s an excuse to dress them up in dark colors match-ups. The most important person on the field driving the whole machine is the quarterback, and it’s more about what’s easiest & best for him. The quarterback doesn’t want to be throwing into a clusterfuck of colors like a tie dye shirt. He wants excellent contrast & absolute clear targets to his receivers. White vs color over color vs color accomplishes that.

The Jeff|
January 1, 2012 at 2:07 pm |

Tell me concealed, which do you think is more confusing for a QB: Your home uniform is a silver helmet, black jersey & silver pants, you’re on the road facing a team wearing silver helmets, black jerseys & silver pants (see Raiders at Panthers) -or- Your team wears blue jerseys, you’re playing a team wearing red jerseys.

Ricko|
January 1, 2012 at 2:35 pm |

Contrary to what some believe, when you’re looking downfield for a receiver it isn’t the helmet you spot first. It’s the upper body.

You know if your team is color or white today, and that’s the fastest and easiest recognition, requiring the least “decoding”.

Ask a quarterback.

The Jeff|
January 1, 2012 at 2:50 pm |

Well Ricko, I’ll admit I haven’t played quarterback at any level beyond high school gym class (which requires you to know who’s on your team by their face, not what they’re wearing), but “red or blue” can’t be that much harder for the brain to process than “color or white”.

…and again, that potential handicap affects both teams, so what’s the problem? It’s no different than a game in torrential rain & mud, or a snow game or whatever. As long as one team doesn’t get any kind of obvious advantage, what’s the problem?

concealed78|
January 1, 2012 at 3:14 pm |

Jeff, are you insinuating the Raiders quarterback would be too stupid know if he’s playing in a home or road game to know which receiver to throw to? Man, that is really stretching it. And I think there’s enough blue on the Panthers homes to totally differentiate from the Raiders homes; it’s not like it’s a black vs. black game. And don’t tell me blue vs. red provides better or equal contrast than black/color vs white because it doesn’t.

concealed78|
January 1, 2012 at 3:19 pm |

When was the last time we even had a good sloppy mud game? FieldTurf is just another causality in the name of progress. In this day and age NFL players would change unis every quarter in a mud game. And of course we’ll never see a dirty sleeve EVER again.

Ricko|
January 1, 2012 at 3:21 pm |

When everyone’s moving, color/dark vs. white is easiest. By light years.

The difficulties that come with mud-covered teams only support the contention that vast difference is essential. Mud games don’t make people think, “Yah, we don’t need contrast.” Quite the opposite. They confirm the need for it.

And again, you gotta go with “easiest” not with “not so bad.”

Imagine you’re sitting on a picnic table looking down at a war of ants on the ground. Sure, you can tell the brown ants from the black ants…but it would a helluva lot easier if one of the factions was albino ants, wouldn’t it.

Phil Hecken|
January 1, 2012 at 1:52 pm |

black vs. white, every game, would be easiest

why wear any color at all then? put one team in black helmets, black shirts, black pants, black shoes, and black socks…and the other team in storm troopers

BAM

maximum color separation

~~~

c’mon man, i don’t even think THE is arguing for every game to be color vs. color

but every once in a blue moon, for a special game or occasion and as long as there is enough separation between hues? what’s the big deal?

Ricko|
January 1, 2012 at 2:09 pm |

And I’m not arguing against it.

Just that there are multiple reasons why lobbying FOR it as “no big deal” are invalid.

(Painfully obvious who here has played the game and who hasn’t.)

Ricko|
January 1, 2012 at 2:14 pm |

Okay, they just showed a shot of a Bears assistant going over pages of black and white photos from upstairs with his players.

Think one team in white isn’t better for those?

concealed78|
January 1, 2012 at 2:14 pm |

“c’mon man, i don’t even think THE is arguing for every game to be color vs. color”

I think he would want it as much as possible – if there’s two primary navy blue teams playing, he’d want one to wear the secondary color as the top (running joke to today’s blog title – does Jeff have strait jacket memory ties?) He really hates white for some reason, and quite frankly, I don’t understand it at all why, and I think it’s unfounded. White is one of the most basic colors of our lives. He only tolerates white to an extent, but we know his deep down agenda is to apply as much color as possible to everything, and the Raiders uniforms would be 100% black & silver and the roads would be exact inverts of the homes.

I also think it’s his main battle cry cause to eliminate white from sports uniforms.

I guess if I had to put it in simple terms: if your field is color/dark, you should wear light pants, and if it’s white/light, then wear color pants/shorts. I think the Big Four get it right most of the time.

The Jeff|
January 1, 2012 at 2:23 pm |

Because team colors should mean something. If you’re a blue & white team, then yes, by all means, wear white jerseys. But if you’ve got a matchup between “black & gold” and “green & silver” why the hell should white be involved as anything more than trim?

Yeah, I’d love to see color vs color for almost every game, but that doesn’t make it any less viable as a special event thing, does it?

Ricko|
January 1, 2012 at 2:29 pm |

Keep in mind The Jeff once said here that if “a few more interceptions” are the price to pay for seeing more color-on-color games, “it’s worth it.”

But those stupid football people just refuse to think that way, won’t accept that the most important thing is making games fun to look at.

concealed78|
January 1, 2012 at 3:34 pm |

Ricko, that’s why I wouldn’t want Jeff anywhere near my team’s logos or uniforms, my Dr Pepper, my KFC original recipe, deep dish pizza or any other sacred cows. I can’t handle that kind of ideology from a radical.

Fringe aesthetics over interceptions is just maniacal insanity where all logic is lost & just doesn’t Get Itâ„¢. I blame it on the video games.

Team colors do mean something, but doesn’t mean they should be dressed head to toe in solid monochrome / paired with dark colors. It looks like shit. Sports uniforms aren’t supposed to look like the Matrix or the XFL or the salesman at Best Best or Sports Authority.

concealed78|
January 1, 2012 at 3:53 pm |

* – Best Buy.

Jim Vilk|
January 1, 2012 at 4:53 pm |

I just realized most of you are thinking only about how it looks…esp. close up and not in motion. I’m focused on whether it works, from the standpoint of players, coaches, officials and more…and the people sitting in the 50th row.
Yeah, just like our gentlemanly discussions about number fonts…

I’m with Ricko from a functionality standpoint, although I’d go for “optimal color separation” as opposed to “maximum color separation.” If there’s a difference.

Haven’t gone through every comment yet, but I think we can all agree the This Peach Tastes Like Chicken Bowl was a thoroughly acceptable matchup.

Phil Hecken|
January 1, 2012 at 6:40 pm |

are you sure ricko thinks so? or mark?

Jim Vilk|
January 1, 2012 at 8:00 pm |

By acceptable, I meant that the folks in the nosebleed seats and those with small black & white TVs can tell the teams apart. Wasn’t taking likes or dislikes into account.

I liked all of “The Jeff’s” hemet concepts. Jeff: what do you use to draw? Just Illustrator? I love the vector animation app I use, much more user-friendly than Adobe’s stuff.

The Jeff|
January 1, 2012 at 12:20 pm |

I’m just using a version of Corel Paintshop Pro. I think Illustrator and Photoshop are both a bit more advanced, but this works for what I need. I’m not exactly a professional designer or anything, I just do these things for fun.

Michael Emody|
January 1, 2012 at 12:45 pm |

I’ve been doing things here (not much lately) just for fun, also. Suddenly, I find myself doing animation for web sites. I’m using ToonBoom, which is great for drawing. I just take screen shots if I want to post something here or on Facebook. Illustrator and Photoshop are both tough for me. I have old versions (CS2) and really should practice on them. But it’s so much easier to “yank on lines” in Toon Boom. Coral is probably just as user-friendly, I bet. I know that you can do so much more in Adobe, but it always seems so pc- you know, too many steps.
Keep up the good work- I enjoyed them. Have a great year!

LarryB|
January 1, 2012 at 12:37 pm |

John, I like that plug in you used for the kodak look. Was the name of the plug in what you listed on your picture?

It’s annoying when folk in America refer to soccer as “that European thing” that doesn’t apply to American sports. America has a thriving soccer league, the MLS, and it follows the same uni rules as England, with first kits worn unless a change is necessary to differentiate the teams.

The MLS may be surviving, but I don’t know if I’d say it’s “thriving”. I live in Columbus, Ohio, and I work in retail. The store I work in carries Ohio State stuff year round. Bengals/Browns during football season. Indians/Reds during baseball season. Blue Jackets & Cavs during NBA & NHL seasons. But we do NOT sell anything for the Columbus Crew. Nothing at all. Ever.

As much as I may like soccer’s approach to uniforms with color vs color, quite frankly, no one gives a shit about the sport.

the Crew would have folded by now if no one cared about the sport. Plus the US following of the World Cup and the EPL is very strong.

Regardless of your feelings on the beautiful game, any arguments against color on color that aren’t simply ‘it’s tradition” are moot, because the factors that lead to color on white or color on gray in baseball, simply aren’t relevant anymore – and soccer teams in America manage to cope working on a similar schedule and travel concerns as the NFL.

concealed78|
January 1, 2012 at 1:46 pm |

MLS is not a part of the main sports culture in America like the NFL, MLB, NCAA, NHL or NBA – it gets as much publicity as the WNBA, AHL or tennis and is just not a part of main stream consciousness; it just isn’t. Even in a major market like Chicago the Fire get very little mention on any newscasts. The people just don’t care. Soccer in general might as well be for Mars for all it’s worth. The World Cup? Eh? Anti-American sentiment anyways?

DJ|
January 1, 2012 at 2:08 pm |

Does the WNBA have three non-league owned cable channels broadcasting women’s hoops? Did the ATP Tour just become the object of a bidding war for TV rights like MLS just did (NBC took the rights from Fox, and will do about 70 games a year; Fox responded by getting the 2018 and 2022 World Cups)?

To say that MLS or soccer as a whole is as predominant in peoples’ consciousness as MLB, the NFL, etc. is foolish. To ignore or discount its growing interest is equally foolish.

concealed78|
January 1, 2012 at 4:04 pm |

Well I’m a typical American sports fan living in a suburb of a major U.S. city who watches sports, reads newspapers, watches news, goes to games. I think I represent an accurate read on the typical sports fan here, and we don’t give a shit about soccer.

We have over 465+ years worth of Professional Chicago sports teams tradition & history here, and MLS has only been around since 1997 and to think Chicago fans are going to start caring overnight about a sport like soccer is ignorant & foolish on your part.

DJ|
January 1, 2012 at 7:51 pm |

Where did I say people here in Chicago, or anywhere else, had to accept soccer overnight? I didn’t. What I said was that interest in the sport is growing every year.

Re-read the first sentence of my last paragraph again. I think you’d agree with it.

concealed78|
January 2, 2012 at 4:39 am |

Soccer growing? How is that possible? What is going on in soccer that could possibly merit growth or any huge popularity? And I take zero stock in what the Networks want; it’s all a revenue game. Honestly I used every ounce of strength to keep this civil / from a soccer bashing post.

I used Chicago as an example of a major market with a MLS team, I don’t know what more else you want out of me. The Fire might as well be the Cougars, Wolves, Sky or Jackhammers, because that’s the level it’s at; or even below it. All the Network bidding or Spanish channels carrying games isn’t going to change the fact that it’s a scant sport at best. If it doesn’t make it in the big markets then it has no real chance.

Jim Vilk|
January 1, 2012 at 5:12 pm |

Soccer isn’t popular because the American sports media take every possible opportunity to bash the sport. And like it or not, most people give these guys more legitimacy than they sometimes deserve and therefore conclude that soccer is not worth caring about.

It’s just like all the music critics who bash Kenny G. You can say “He’s not cool” ’til you’re blue in the face, but I’m going to listen to him anyway. Sportswriters and music critics are entitled to their opinions, of course, but so am I. I’m not changing mine for the sake of fitting in.

Oh, and Major League Soccer *is* thriving. Any MISL fan like myself would agree, since our sport has been hanging on for dear life for the past 20 years.

Phil Hecken|
January 1, 2012 at 6:41 pm |

dude…you’re not serious about kenny g, i hope

Jim Vilk|
January 1, 2012 at 10:50 pm |

I never kid about smooth jazz, yo.

Lou|
January 1, 2012 at 1:06 pm |

I hate how the NFL is referred to as the league where they play for pay. Don’t tney play for pay in MLB, the NBA and the NHL? I always thought Francesa made that up because he thinks he is so smart and witty.

NFL is play for pay as opposed to CFB. NBA is play for pay as opposed to CBB. It doesn’t seem that hard.

Phil Hecken|
January 1, 2012 at 1:20 pm |

francesca is neither smart nor witty, and i’m pretty certain he didn’t make that phrase up (but he sure does beat it to death, don’t he)

i’m werried about him

Wheels|
January 1, 2012 at 1:36 pm |

Francesa is the sportspope of his mind.

Rob S|
January 1, 2012 at 2:04 pm |

Even though I know he’s promoting his M11 model that’s supposed to be better protection, it’s still weird to see Mark Messier in anything other than the SK-2000 helmet.

Rex|
January 1, 2012 at 3:06 pm |

I like the color on color UVA/auburn game, but uva’s orange helmets didn’t really match the orange jerseys. They would have looked better alternating colors with the blue helmet in top of orange and blue
And once again, 5 & 1 never fails to disappoint me by reeking of biased, predetermined picks.

kyle.|
January 1, 2012 at 3:14 pm |

i didn’t scan the comments too closely, but the rose bowl wasn’t moved to avoid the nfl. the rose bowl game is tied to the parade which is never on sunday to avoid blocking churches along the parade route.

i’m not sure about the other sporting events (bowl games and the nhl winter classic).

Ricko|
January 1, 2012 at 3:24 pm |

Isn’t just that.
Historically, college football has almost NEVER been played on Sunday.
You could look it up.

Dante|
January 1, 2012 at 3:40 pm |

No, basically it is that. The parade rout is lined with churches, and the city of Pasadena that they won’t hold the parade, thus the game, on a Sunday. The “Never on Sunday” policy was instituted in order “to avoid frightening horses tethered outside local churches and thus interfering with worship services.”

Ricko|
January 1, 2012 at 4:16 pm |

Okay, we’re splitting hairs, but the fact remains that pretty much no college football is played on Sundays.

Yeah, we can point to the Rose Bowl and say the game stays with the parade…but the Rose Parade, generally speaking, moves to Monday when the 1st is a Sunday for the same overall reason colleges haven’t played on Sundays. It’s societal, not just a matter of Pasadena logistics.

Had nothing to do with the NFL, not historically. Why not? Because the colleges were avoiding Sundays when no one gave a shit about the NFL.

I wouldn’t put the Eagles in a Cowboys-esque silver helmet, or that old 1953 Bears logo on a helmet – C-wishbone works great. Sometimes a primary logo works best as a secondary / general merchandise logo, like the Eagles screaming head. Less is more.

If white shirts are required, they should go all the way and require white pants. The Bengals in Orange-Black-Black against the Ravens in Black-White-Black looks terrible. Just regulating shirts isn’t enough to prevent color clash games.

-DW|
January 1, 2012 at 7:03 pm |

Phil:

Nice work how you still got your jab in on Chick-fil-A with your strike-thru of “Christian Sammich”.

I expected better out of you.

I was always taught that if you don’t like something, ignore it and don’t give it the attention that it seeks.

Phil Hecken|
January 1, 2012 at 7:07 pm |

im also rooting HARD for the chiefs now

traxel|
January 1, 2012 at 10:41 pm |

Two more classes and we’ll all expect more out of Phil. Until then, regular weekend uni entertainment is just fine with me.

Little Jack Horner|
January 1, 2012 at 7:03 pm |

Most of those helmet concepts are awesome!

It would have been nice to throw in a plain silver Seahawks helmet like 1976 though (maybe in the current color?)

Great work.

concealed78|
January 2, 2012 at 4:10 am |

It would have been nice to throw in a plain silver Seahawks helmet like 1976 though

**nervous attempt at HTML code**

That joke never gets funny no matter how many times people tell it.

Wheels|
January 1, 2012 at 7:40 pm |

The new WizardBullets uniforms are pretty good I guess, but the jersey numbers are nearly impossible to make out from any angle other than a closeup. They’re gonna have to fix that.

concealed78|
January 2, 2012 at 4:06 am |

Whoever designed those uniforms obviously did it on a computer & didn’t take in account how dark the gray trim around the numbers would create such a muddy and poor contrast in the distance. Plus the numbers are way too narrow & small. But other than that & the weird blue side panel stripe, they look great.

Jord|
January 1, 2012 at 7:55 pm |

I loved that Auburn & Virginia went color vs. color. It should be the norm if the teams’ uniform color schemes aren’t too similar. Most teams white unis look like shit.

Jeff, are you insinuating the Raiders quarterback would be too stupid know if he’s playing in a home or road game to know which receiver to throw to?

Hmm… Carson Palmer – 11 TDs, 15 INTs. Um, Yes?

concealed78|
January 2, 2012 at 4:02 am |

That’s more of a shitty quarterback than a shitty uniform. I know you’re grasping at straws to kill that white jersey.

Bill|
January 5, 2012 at 1:19 am |

The –
Some very creative helmet ideas! I liked the white facemasks for the Giants, but take it one step further (back!): Drop the ‘ny’ for ‘GIANTS’.
I’ve always thought the ’60’s-era uniforms are drab and dull (Grey pants?!? There’s a red stripe on the helmet but the jersey is just blue with white numerals… looks like a practice jersey! Don’t even get me started on those road jerseys!), and, am I the only person who finds it odd that a team with a nickname denoting great size has a logo comprised of lower case letters? I always loved the big, bold ‘GIANTS’ logo on the ’70’s – ’90’s teams and I keep hoping they bring it back.